Abstract No. 397 Patient Radiation Dose Differences Between Fixed and Portable Fluoroscopic Imaging Units for Prostatic Artery Embolization Procedures: Outcomes for 206 Patients

To assess for differences in radiation dose to patients during prostatic artery embolization (PAE) procedures using fixed versus portable interventional fluoroscopic platforms. A single operator with over 11 years of PAE experience performed 75 PAE procedures with a fixed interventional fluoroscopy unit (GE-630 or GE-640) and 131 PAE procedures using a portable interventional fluoroscopy unit (OEC-Elite) from January 2018 to January 2022. Data for patient age, body mass index (BMI), total procedure time (PT), fluoroscopy time (FT), reference point cumulative air kerma (CAK), and field-of-view area were retrospectively collected. Kerma-area product (KAP) and mean/median effective dose (ED) were calculated. Two-sample t-tests compared means for each parameter between fixed and portable imaging platform subgroups, to assess for differences between subgroup patient characteristics, procedural characteristics, and radiation dose values. Patient age and BMI did not differ between groups (P=0.76 and 0.68) (Table 397.1). Procedure time was shorter for portable unit procedures (P< 0.001). Fluoroscopy times between groups did not differ (P=0.67). Mean field-of-view size was larger for portable unit procedures (P< 0.001). Reference point CAKs, KAPs, and calculated EDs were lower for PAE procedures performed with portable units (P< 0.001 for all) (see Table 397.1). Patient- and operator-related parameters contributing to radiation dose did not differ between fixed and portable interventional fluoroscopic units in this study. However, use of portable interventional fluoroscopic units for PAE was associated with substantial reductions in reference point CAK, KAP, and hence ED. Further analysis for differences in technical, clinical, and adverse event outcomes between the two platforms for PAE is warranted.